By the end of August, the scarf project had developed significantly, both conceptually and technically. I had established the narrative structure, designed the pattern and its four main areas, developed the spatial world, created an initial previs and completed several technical tests involving cloth, stitching and the Cinema 4D to Unreal Engine pipeline.
However, the previs and R&D also made the scale of the project much clearer.
To complete the film as I had imagined it, I still needed to develop multiple environmental animation systems, refine the cloth movement, solve the stitching effect, complete the world, establish the final materials and lighting, and make all of these systems work reliably between Cinema 4D and Unreal Engine.
I realised that I was spending an increasing amount of time solving technical dependencies rather than developing the motion and final visual piece itself.
This was particularly important because one of my original aims for the FMP was to create a strong portfolio piece focused on 3D motion design. The technical experimentation was valuable, but I started questioning whether the increasing complexity was actually helping me achieve that objective.
At this point, I decided to reconsider the direction of the project rather than continue adding solutions to an already complex production system.
Returning to a Personal Project
I began considering whether I could build the FMP around Pezzio, a previous project in which I had designed an app for finding pet-friendly places in Madrid.
This immediately presented a different type of opportunity.
Unlike the scarf project, I would not need to simultaneously invent a new brand, product, visual identity and narrative world. Pezzio already had an established purpose, graphic identity, UI and visual language, but it had never had an advertising campaign or motion piece.
This gave me a new starting point:
What if Pezzio were a real product, expanding from Madrid and launching in the UK?
Rather than developing another concept from scratch, I could treat the FMP as a proper campaign or launch film for an existing product. There would be a clear purpose and something specific to communicate, while still giving me considerable freedom to explore 3D, motion and art direction.
Most importantly, I felt that this could help me move away from the cycle of overcomplicating the conceptual side of the project.
With Pezzio, I already know what the product, who it was for and what its visual language looked like. The challenge could shift towards how to communicate it through motion.
This would allow me to concentrate the remaining production period on the areas I originally wanted the FMP to demonstrate:
- 3D motion design
- art direction
- animation
- camera
- transitions
- visual storytelling
- final execution
I also did not see this as starting again completely from zero.
A lot of what I had already developed during the summer could still inform the new project: camera language, pacing, transitions, progressive reveals, moving through a constructed world and the technical R&D I had completed.
The intention was therefore to redirect the development into a clearer framework rather than discard it.
Here are some visual from Pezzio
Discussing the Change with Ting
Once I had a clearer idea of what the new direction could be, I discussed the proposed change with Ting.
I explained why I was considering Pezzio, how much of the original project development could still inform it, and why having an existing product and visual identity could allow me to make better use of the remaining tutorials and feedback.
Ting agreed that the new direction sounded clearer, although she also highlighted the obvious risk of making such a significant change with relatively little production time remaining:
“It’s not the best to change your idea when you have so little time left. However, you’re not the only one having this struggle and doing so. It sounds that you have a clearer direction and approach…”
Her main concern was therefore not the Pezzio concept itself, but whether I could realistically execute the new project within the remaining time:
“My main concern, really, is how little time you have. Please make sure you have a very clear timeline and perhaps make the scope of your work manageable, but also not losing your style and your magic you have in your animation.”
I think this is an important distinction.
Changing to Pezzio does not automatically solve the problem of scope. A new project could very easily become equally complicated if I continued adding ideas and technical challenges.
The change therefore needed to be accompanied by a different production approach.
The part of Ting’s feedback about maintaining my own style was also important. I did not want “manageable” to become synonymous with visually safe or basic.
The challenge became:
How can I reduce production complexity without reducing the visual ambition of the final piece?
Revising the Production Timeline
My first response to this feedback was to rebuild the production timeline around the new project.
Rather than immediately beginning polished shots, I divided the remaining production into clearer stages:
Previs and storyboard development → Character and rigging test → Asset preparation → Rough animation blocking → Environment and motion development → Look development → Rendering → Post-production
The new schedule also needed to account for the fact that my first major feedback session would be on 16 September.
For that reason, my immediate priority became having the overall film readable at previs level before that session, rather than arriving with one or two polished shots while large sections of the film remained unresolved.
I also identified character animation as an early production risk.
Although I intended to keep the characters’ role deliberately limited, rigging and animation were areas that could quickly consume a disproportionate amount of production time. I therefore placed character and rigging tests early in the schedule so that I could evaluate their feasibility before committing too much of the film to them.
This timeline is not only intended as a list of deadlines. I want to use it as a way of controlling the scope of the project.
If a particular technique begins taking significantly longer than expected, I need to evaluate whether it is essential to the communication of the film rather than automatically continuing until I solve it.
VISUALS
- Large screenshot of your revised Pezzio timeline
- Crop/detail showing the work leading towards 16 September
- If you’ve colour-coded stages, keep that visible
- Optional: old FMP timeline vs revised timeline
What Happens to the Scarf Project?
Changing direction does not mean that I consider the scarf development unsuccessful or wasted.
In fact, the summer research made the decision much easier to recognise.
The project allowed me to explore and test:
- procedural animation
- cloth simulation
- spline-driven movement
- stitching and thread systems
- Cinema 4D to Unreal Engine workflows
- environmental storytelling
- camera development
- previsualisation
More importantly, it highlighted a tendency in my own process to continue adding technical complexity when a simpler production structure might communicate an idea more effectively.
The scarf is also a project I would like to revisit in the future.
I would rather return to it when I can give the procedural world, cloth and stitching systems the development time they require than reduce the original idea simply to make it fit the current FMP deadline.
This does not mean that Pezzio will be technically simple. It will introduce its own problems and require me to learn new skills.
The difference is that I now have a clearer framework against which I can evaluate those decisions: does this help communicate Pezzio and improve the final motion piece, or am I adding complexity for its own sake?
For that reason, I have decided to move forward with Pezzio and use the remaining FMP period to create a more focused piece.
The change of direction is not a reset of the summer research, but a production decision informed by it.